Contract Cases

?
2 cases for opinions. Case for statements of future intention.
Bisset v Wilkinson and Esso v Mardon. Edgington v Fitzmaurice.
1 of 68
Case for no obligation to disclose. Case for half truth. Case for change in circumstance.
Keates v Cadogan. Nottingham Patent Brick. With v OFlanagan.
2 of 68
Case where statement was made after formation of contract.
Roscorla v Thomas.
3 of 68
Case for statement of material fact needing to be material to the reasonable person. Case showing doesn't have to be only reason, just has to be actively present in their mind.
JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom. Edgington v Fitzmaurice.
4 of 68
Case for fraudulent misrepresentation. Case to show the reason why they lied doesn't matter.
Derry v Peek. Akerheilm v De Mare.
5 of 68
Case for fiction of fraud. What is it affirmed in?
Royscott v Rogerson. Yam Seng Pte v Int Trade Corp.
6 of 68
Case for negligent misstatement.
Hedley Byrne v Heller.
7 of 68
What grants courts the RARE discretion to award damages for innocent misrepresentation?
s2(2) MRA
8 of 68
Limits to recission- Cases for 1) affirmation 2) lapse of time 3) Third Party Rights 4) Restitutio in Integrum
1) Long v Lloyd 2) Leaf v International Galleries 3) Crystal Palace FC v Dowie 4) Clarke v Dickson
9 of 68
Establishing contractual intentions- Cases for 1) Time between statement and contract 2) Responsibility for truth of statement 3) Importance of statement 4) Relative knowledge of parties
1) Routledge v McKay 2) Schawel v Reade 3) Bannerman v White 4) **** Bentley Productions v Harold Smith
10 of 68
Case for the parol evidence rule
Shogun Finance v Hudson
11 of 68
Case showing courts will only imply terms by fact when it is NECESSARY.
Luxor v Cooper
12 of 68
There are two tests to imply a term by fact. What cases cover these two tests?
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (officious bystander) Moorcock (business efficiacy)
13 of 68
Case for terms implied by law (as a public policy matter)
Liverpool CC v Irwin
14 of 68
Case for terms implied by custom. Case for the burden of proof beingon the person who relies on the custom.
Hutton v Warren. Les Affrenteurs Reunis v Walford.
15 of 68
Sections of the SGA 1979 that refer to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose.
s14(2) and s14(3)
16 of 68
What sections of the SGSA 1982 refer to satisfactory quality of materials and reasonable care and skill?
s4 s13
17 of 68
What sections of the CRA refer to fitness for purpose, satisfactory quality, matching descriptions, matching samples, reasonable care and skill.
s9, s10, s11, s13, s49.
18 of 68
What section of the CRA refers to reasonable price and time?
Part 1 Chapter 4
19 of 68
Section saying the CRA wont cover any defect brought to the customer's attention before the formation of contract.
s9(4)
20 of 68
Case for the importance of signature.
LeStrange v Graucob
21 of 68
Case for reasonable notice (incorporation of terms)
Parker v South Eastern Railway (back of ticket is fine)
22 of 68
Case for timing of the terms
Colley v Mallborough Court Hotel
23 of 68
Case for the red hand rule
Interfoto Picture Library v Stiletto Visual Programmes
24 of 68
Two cases for incorporation by course of dealing
Spurling v Bradshaw. McCutcheon v McBrayne (not sufficiently frequent and consistent dealings)
25 of 68
Case for incorporation by common understanding (only applies to commerical contracts)
British Crane Hire v Ipswich Plant Hire
26 of 68
Construction of terms- case for words given no wider meaning than their scope
Wallis Son and Wells v Pratt and Haynes
27 of 68
Case for ambiguous terms being contra proferentum. Also the act it is affirmed in.
Houghton v Trafalgar Insurance s69 CRA
28 of 68
Case for especially clear words must be used to exclude liability for negligence
Canada Steamship v King
29 of 68
Case showing exclusion terms that seek to exclude more than one type of liability won't be found to exclude negligence
White v Warwick
30 of 68
Two cases for the two rules on fundamental breach
Photo Production v Securicor Transport (especially clear words must be used) Tor Lines v Altrans Group (cannot be left with no obligations whatsoever).
31 of 68
What Act do you apply to exclusion clauses in commercial contracts?
Unfair Contract Terms Act
32 of 68
What section of the UCTA specifies a list of exclusion clauses which are prohibited and will be rendered void?
s2(1) (death or personal injury resulting from negligence)
33 of 68
Which section dicates that terms will be subject to a test of reasonableness?
s2(2)
34 of 68
What section covers exclusion clauses in disguise? What case did this happen in?
s3(2)(b) Anglo Continental Holidays v Typaldos
35 of 68
Where is the test of reasonableness set out in the act?
s11(1)
36 of 68
What part of the act tells us which factors can be taken into account when deciding if a clause is reasonable?
Schedule 2
37 of 68
Case showing a term is more likely to be found to be reasonable if the IP should have reasonably insured themselves against it
Photo Production v Securicor
38 of 68
Case showing the availability of another contract without the exclusion clause will make it more likely to be reasonable
Woodman v Photo Trade Processing
39 of 68
4 categories of exlcusion terms under CRA 2015
Prohibited, under a presumption of unfairness, enforceable if transparent and fair, exempt from fairness test
40 of 68
What sections give examples of prohibited terms?
s9 - 17, s28, 29, 57
41 of 68
What section makes exclusion clauses for negligence prohibited terms?
s65(2)
42 of 68
What section gives us a 30 day refund?
s19
43 of 68
What section sets out the test of fairness?
s62(4)
44 of 68
In what case does Lord Bingham describe transparency?
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank
45 of 68
Where are the 'grey list' terms listed?
Part 1 schedule 2 (misdescribed goods, failure to perform obligations, varying prices and restricting remedies)
46 of 68
Where are the exempt terms (2) specified? What case shows they must still pass the transparency test?
s64 Directpr General of Fair Trading v First National Bank
47 of 68
Overdraft fees being exempted price terms case?
Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National
48 of 68
What section of the CRA tells us the effect of a term being deemed unfair?
s67
49 of 68
Two cases for frustration
Davis Contractors v Fareham National Carriers v Panalpina
50 of 68
examples of frustrating events- case for 1)destruction of subject matter 2)death/incapacity 3)legal impossibility 4)govt interference/delay 5)whole commerical purpose chaned
1)Taylor v caldwell 2)Condor v Barron Knights 3)Fibrosa 4)Fa Tamplin Steamship 5)Krell v Henry
51 of 68
Limitations on frustration- cases for 1)self inducement 2)express provisions in a contract 3)foreseeability
1)lauritzen v wijsmuller 2)fibrosa 3)amalgamated investment v john walter and sons
52 of 68
Case showing parties can recover payments made prior to frustrating event if there is total failure of consideration. What act does this come from?
Fibrosa, Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act
53 of 68
What section of the LR(FC) Act gives courts discretion to award compensation for work done prior to furstrating event?
s1(2)
54 of 68
What two things give rise to a right to terminate a contract?
Repudiatory (serious) breach OR Renunciation constituting anticipatory breach
55 of 68
Three types of terms in relation to termination
Conditions, warranties (damages only), inominate terms
56 of 68
Case for inominate terms
Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawaski Kisen Kaisha
57 of 68
examples of terms that are conditions under statute
satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose
58 of 68
case showing terms can be conditions by common agreement. Case showing just bc they call a term a condition, doesn't mean the courts have to treat it as one.
Stoczina Gdynia v Gearbulk Schluer v Wickman
59 of 68
Case for mitigation
Payzu v Saunders
60 of 68
Case for ordinary losses. And for non ordinary losses? Case showing losses must be within the reasonable obligations of that person.
Hadley v Bazendale Victoria Laundries v Newman Achilleas
61 of 68
Case showing you can't claim for bad bargain
CLP Haulage v Middleton
62 of 68
Case for aim of damages
Robinson v Harman
63 of 68
Case for attempting to claim for gross profit as well as expenditure
Angila TV v Reed
64 of 68
Case for drop in value v cost of cure
Ruxley Electronics (pool)
65 of 68
Case setting out the test for whether you can claim cost of cure
Radford v De Foberville
66 of 68
1)Case showing you cant usually claim for injured feelings 2)unless pleasure is part of the contract
Addis v Gramophone Jarvis v Swan Tours
67 of 68
1)Case showing you cannot claim for D's gain 2)unless you tried to get an injunction to stop them
Teacher v Calder Wrotham Park Estates v Parkside Homes
68 of 68

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Keates v Cadogan. Nottingham Patent Brick. With v OFlanagan.

Back

Case for no obligation to disclose. Case for half truth. Case for change in circumstance.

Card 3

Front

Roscorla v Thomas.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

JEB Fasteners v Marks Bloom. Edgington v Fitzmaurice.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Derry v Peek. Akerheilm v De Mare.

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Contract resources »